Reasons for the disappointing numbers-Discussion

[Hunter Rider]

We have a BO thread full over numbers and lots of talk of other movies figures in comparison but what has caused this film to under perform ?

It seems pretty much agreed from critics to fans that it is better than the first and yet it is gonna make less which is a real shame IMO

Possible reasons for discussion

-The negative impact of the first movie

-The months competition

-Lack of action

-seeming small in scale compared to the rest of the summers big hitters

-Improved but not enough for people to care after the first

 

[The Ones]

I think the PG rating and 90 minute movie turned alot of people away

 

[Malus]

It had a wide-open spot as far as direct competition goes, but might have benefited from a mid-August or holiday release.
Most of the people I've encountered who haven't seen it yet give the same reason as those who haven't seen Pirates or Spidey yet: Haven't had time.
I think there's a growing tendency for people who don't catch big films like these initially to wait for DVD, sometimes subconsciously. For instance, I want to see Pirates 3, and I've had ample opportunity, but I guess I'm waiting for DVD.

Some folks may have been "spectacled out" with FF2 arriving so soon after the year's two MEGA movies (Pirates & Spidey), whether they were satisfied with those films or not.
I think most of us can agree that Pirates 3 and Spidey 3 certainly recieved more lukewarm reviews from critics and fans than previous installments in either franchise. And each has made less than its predecessor, so wouldn't that put FF2 on the same track?

But the bad aftertaste of FF1 cannot be discounted, I suppose.

All I know is everyone I encounter out in the flesh-and-blood real world loved this movie. (A lot more than I did.)

I do think the DVD sales for FF-Silver Surfer are going to be quite nice, though. We'll see.

 

[Malus]

I think the PG rating and 90 minute movie turned alot of people away

I don't think the average joe checks running times.

And I think the PG helped more than it hurt.
Both USA Today and Daily Variety (among others) speculated that the less restrictive rating probably boosted the film's opening receipts.

The only place I've read or heard anything negative about the rating is here and on AICN.

 

[DyeLorean]

The answer in my opinion is simple: too many big-budget films released at the same week/month/season. People has to pick one, two, three movies to see, and sadly Fantastic Four isn't the main option, among all the offers.

D!

 

[Symbiotic]

At least it passed the $100 million mark domestically.

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

^That is still dissapointing,especially when compaired to Spider-Man.

I will make a serious comment.I sort of think there wont be a sequel,especially with the fact that the FF films never break more than 200,there is no 300.

Its a shame the FF series is not as taken seriously as Spider-Man.What is odd,is that this movie was advertised nearly as well as Spider-Man..yet the film fell flat.

 

[Bishop2]

Possible reasons for discussion

-The negative impact of the first movie

-The months competition

-Lack of action

-seeming small in scale compared to the rest of the summers big hitters

-Improved but not enough for people to care after the first

I think the first one is probably the best on the list.

I don't "lack of action" is a valid problem. Look at Spider-Man 2. It was a smash hit, but it actually LESS ACTION than this movie did. Bank robbery, and then the train fight/final battle back-to-back sequences. FF2, in comparison, just has more and longer sequences by sheer numbers.

I think another thing to consider is the issue I posted about when I shared this comic, titled "There's no redeeming the concept." Even as a man who knows the comics, David Willis of Shortpacked! said he wasn't that enthused about this movie because, frankly, he felt that the entire Silver Surfer concept was just too crazy to work in a more serious movie environment. When he saw the film, his short review was "They did it about as well as they probably could, but that's not saying much."

So you have to wonder how many "regular moviegoers" saw the whole "Naked silver alien on a flying surfboard" and immediately mentally checked out from all those ads.

 

[webhead731]

I think the PG rating

I second this.

Though it wasn't as bad as I'd thought it'd be, it still should've been PG-13. I'm sure a PG rating turned alot of teens away from it because they think they're too "cool" to see a PG movie.

 

[The Ones]

I second this.

Though it wasn't as bad as I'd thought it'd be, it still should've been PG-13. I'm sure a PG rating turned alot of teens away from it because they think they're too "cool" to see a PG movie.

Exactly. I remember a while back when Spider-man 2 was rated PG here, my friend immediatly said: "Oh my god its going to suck" without hesitation. He actually waited til i bought it on dvd for him to see.

I know this isnt Spider-man, but its solid proof of the effect PG ratings have in the minds of teen's

 

[Kelly]

Exactly. I remember a while back when Spider-man 2 was rated PG here, my friend immediatly said: "Oh my god its going to suck" without hesitation. He actually waited til i bought it on dvd for him to see.

I know this isnt Spider-man, but its solid proof of the effect PG ratings have in the minds of teen's

The only thing that shows is your friend needs to grow up....


As has been stated, most analyst have said that this probably helped its BO, rather than hurt it........and PG (wherever you are) certainly didn't hurt Spiderman 2, now did it?

 

[dark_b]

^That is still dissapointing,especially when compaired to Spider-Man.

I will make a serious comment.I sort of think there wont be a sequel,especially with the fact that the FF films never break more than 200,there is no 300.

Its a shame the FF series is not as taken seriously as Spider-Man.What is odd,is that this movie was advertised nearly as well as Spider-Man..yet the film fell flat.

you mean its a shame that fox didtnt make a more serious movei right?

right?

you cna not expect that people will take fantastic moveis serious. they are not serous movies.

 

[X-Maniac]

No, it's really quite simple.

FF are not established characters. The cartoons were not widely shown and aren't well known.

Harry Potter has the books to make it very very popular (and there is a total frenzy over the imminent arrival of the last book), Spider-Man has widely-known cartoons and merchandising everywhere (costumes, toys, you name it).

It's pointless making a child-aimed movie if you don't have a good presence in the children's market.

What they should have done is ensure the cartoons were widely shown on terrestrial channels before the movies came out.

Since they don't have a slice of the children's market, they should make an adult-oriented movie that is more substantial and more serious.

 

[Mercurius]

The reasons for failure, as I see it:

1) Star Wars scope with romantic comedy pattern;

2) Awful direction;

3) Bad script (full of plotholes);

4) Weak or nonsense villains (Doom was DINO again, and let's not get started on Gah-LaK-Tus, the Cloud);

5) Fake and horrible make up (Alba looks weird with those lenses, super sun tan and doll wig);

6) Silly jokes all over it;

7) Really dull start with all that loose yadda yadda about marriage; and "that's it?" kind of ending with that fake "battle" between Surfer and...you know, the cloud.

8) Bad acting. Alba was terrible this time and McMahon, disgraceful;

9) Bad hype among the fan base: if a movie of this particular genre wants to establish a decent franchise, first thing is to please the faithful readers of the original material. The first FF almost ruined it, and this one, I believe, did it (Story's lies, confusing and deceptive interviews, final bad result);

10) The movie needed an intelligence behind the cameras that could manage to match a visionary transposition of the FF (like Peter Jackson with the LOTR trilogy) and that captivating spirit that made FF one of the best comic books ever (even in terms of money).

 

[psylockolussus]

The movie is too short

Plus the director is just bad

 

[ultimatefan]

- The negative impact of the first movie should definitely be considered. It was a hit at the time, but it´s the kind of movie that has no repeat viewing value, and as the hype died down people realized it wasn´t good.

- I have no doubt that the FF movies could have reached much higher numbers if they received the same treatment as the Spider-Man movies, balancing out seriousness and character development with the "fun popcorn movie" aspect. The studio and filmmakers simply didn´t trust the audience and went for something silly and shallow for the quick profit, but at best you only get away with that once. If you want to build a consistently successful franchise, you have to walk the extra mile.

-

 

[Hunter Rider]

-The negative impact of the first movie

-seeming small in scale compared to the rest of the summers big hitters

These for me are the main two factors,despite the first movie doing a lot better than expected after the sour reviews the after taste lingered and hurt the sequel,i also think the first came out in a summer of dark movies and that played to it's favour where this time it didn't have that luxury.

There were enough set pieces in the film IMO but the scale,scope,length and execution of them outside the first SS/Torch chase left little big screen replay value unlike the juggernauts of May that proceeded it

 

[Kelly]

No, it's really quite simple.

FF are not established characters. The cartoons were not widely shown and aren't well known.

Harry Potter has the books to make it very very popular (and there is a total frenzy over the imminent arrival of the last book), Spider-Man has widely-known cartoons and merchandising everywhere (costumes, toys, you name it).

It's pointless making a child-aimed movie if you don't have a good presence in the children's market.

What they should have done is ensure the cartoons were widely shown on terrestrial channels before the movies came out.

Since they don't have a slice of the children's market, they should make an adult-oriented movie that is more substantial and more serious.

I think you have a good point.....a point that I think was one of the biggest things against the first movie....and showing TV spots 3x per show on the Cartoon Network 3 weeks before the movie comes out will not get that audience....

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

No matter how good FF was it was never going to do Spidey numbers because they aren't anywhere near as popular, that being said, they are known and should have brought in better numbers than what they have.

I think that the reasons for the disappointing numbers are simple. The first movie wasn't good enough, thus very few people actually remembered it.

Not only is the first movie not good enoughit's too light weight as a film, it breaks no new ground in terms of characters or SFX. The choice of half of the cast, the director and writter shows that Fox wasn't taking it serously so why should we?

I believe that if Fox had followed Sony's lead and brought in a director who could do both comedy and drama the first movie would have hit 200mil. Hell I believe that Fox would have easily gotten upwards of 250mil in boxoffice returns in 2000 if they didn't hire a dramatic director to helm X-men andspent 140mil on the movie. Fox just screws up franchises for no reason what so ever.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

The FF are just a 130-140 million dollar franchise to begin with maybe? Not every hero sells 100,000 copies so maybe the same is with the movie. The first movie was the peak like a first issue now the movie's actually level is here.

 

[Nokio]

Two reason: The release date is the biggest problem to me and the 1st one. I'm not jumping on some new bandwagon about the relase date being the reason for the weaker box office, I said this 1st when it was announced that FOX was moving F4 from the July 4th date due to TF that the 15 is to risky.

Considering FOX's mediocre outputs and them blinking again like they did with WOTW i said they should moved it to August. I'm guessing Speilberg knew F4 would movie again, he probably was like "F4 isn't a problem, they'll move" and they did with both projectes he was involved in, which is kinda pathetic on FOX's part.

While the movie was better then the 1st outing the stink of the 1st one still reared its ugly head, but not as bad as an affect as the release date. FOX should've released F4 like between Thanksgiving and Xmas or if they wanted a summer release date i think the end of July would've been good. HP comes out on the 11th and if F4 ROTSS was released like on July 27th or Aug 3rd it would've had some breathing room and then word of mouth of the better product probably would've helped it.

That june 15th release date was in the middle of huge competition and when you're paying 10 bucks a ticket you think I'll go and see this, I'm not sure about F4, cuase the 1st one was either awful or ok.

 

[Nokio]

The FF are just a 130-140 million dollar franchise to begin with maybe? Not every hero sells 100,000 copies so maybe the same is with the movie. The first movie was the peak like a first issue now the movie's actually level is here.

Um if the Incrediables can gross 270 domestically, who are based off the f4, i think a live action F4 could've seen that same amount had a quality director been onboard. While what director would've done a kick ass job is a matter of opinion, I'm confident a James Camron(due to his relationship with FOX) directed F4 would have been of much much higher quality and it would have made that 200 plus million take. Also i'd like to add that the F4 sequal that came out this summer with Cameron behind it would'nt had to move from that July 4th week, cause Bay and Speilberg would'nt have even put their TF project in path with it, but since FOX went with a lessor director and lessor creative team they had nothing to fear and didn't care one way or the other if F4 stayed or moved cause they saw it as no threat what so ever.

 

[Angelus7181]

This was way to soon, Fox should have waited for summer 2008. It felt way to soon when I heard FF2 was for summer 2007.

Fox should have released it after Transformers or Harry Potter.

Seems to me like they relied on the surfer way to much in order to sell this movie, I found it strange how they masked the surfer like 25% of the movie until the the chase when they been plastering his image all over the place.

And yes the first movie's lack of good direction and action did hurt it's numbers.

But we all know how FOX runs every franchise into the ground so.. yeah.

 

[Spade]

-Improved but not enough for people to care after the first

This is it, to me, in a nutshell. This movie would have had to have rave reviews, not the mix of "above average" and "mediocre" reviews to escape the bad word-of-mouth created by the first film.

Twentieth Century Fox wants to resolve this? Simple enough- take a serious approach with it in a restart or an adult-themed sequel. The lighthearted semi-canonical approach is failing. They don't need an AVP2 approach, just a more mature one.

 

[Mercurius]

Um if the Incrediables can gross 270 domestically, who are based off the f4, i think a live action F4 could've seen that same amount had a quality director been onboard.

And that's why the argument of those who think the FF failed because they are not as well-known as Spider-Man is just wrong. The problem is the poor quality in comparison.